How does it feel to now be a taxpayer?

[Jarod]

Yes, they did. If you don't read that, you are misreading it. That's all I can say!

They found Congress has no authority to do this under the commerce clause... not the mandate... not the penalty... not the general funding for the program! Not a fucking BIT of it can be done using the commerce clause, the states can't be compelled to pay for it with their Medicare funds, and the Feds can't steal money from Medicare to pay for this... which essentially means, the ONLY way it can constitutionally exist, is as a tax pursuant to Congress' ability to tax.

false!!! They found Congress had no authority to penalize people for not buying insurance under the CC, but they do have the authority to fine people who do not have insurance because such a fine is a tax!

You are a fool, we all can see it! We ALL know you are wrong.

If you could have you would have posted a quite from the opinion, it's not in there do you won't!

 

[Jarod]

But then you never did answer how this bill is going to be funded.
I wonder why that is?
NO, REALLY; I do wonder why.

what is there to fund?

 

[Jarod]

I certainly would, if I had made one......

you claim the mandate is a tax, not just the penalty. You were wrong, I posted from Roberts opinion showing that you were wrong.

 

[apple0154]

Because, when Congress appropriated the funding for the military, it wasn't appropriating the money for Obamacare. The Supreme Court was clear, they can't use money appropriated for other things, to fund Obamacare.... it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! IF the system existed that you envision, the Congress could simply pass the "Every American Deserves to be a Millionaire Act" promising that a modest increase in tax will enable the government to send every American a check for a million bucks.... THEN, when that is passed, decide to spend the money on something totally different. We'd have bills like that everyday! "Love for Fuzzy Cats Act" --designed to promote love for fuzzy cats, but instead, the money goes to fund abortions and gay marriage! You see, this is NOT how representative republic government is supposed to work. We expect them to vote on how to spend our tax dollars, and THEN, to actually DO what they voted to do, and not change that in mid-stream.

What this means is, the shell game with funding is OVER. You can't simply hide the cost of this program and borrow from Peter to pay Paul, while duping the public... it is not constitutional, and the court ruled as such. IF you want Obamacare, you will have to pass a specific tax increase to fund it. Congress has the power and authority to do that, the SCOTUS ruled that as well.

I didn't mean to auction off the aircraft carriers or have a garage sale at the Pentagon. When it's budget time and there is a set amount of dollars to work with set aside a sufficient amount for medical care. Put medical care at the top of the list so should another fruitcake like Rumsfeld ever say there's plenty of money for a war check to see if people have health insurance and hospitals have equipment first and I'm betting that's exactly what Obama and the Dems intend to do. Just like the military signs contracts and subsequent administrations are obliged to honor those contracts it's time to sign a health care contract, specifically, a one payer system because once the citizens realize the benefits of a one payer system there will be no turning back.

 

[apple0154]

Sulu Perms Court? WTF is that? The guy from Star Trek gives perms to people who sit on a court???

How did you think they got their hair this way?

Do you think this dude just used a little hair spray?

 

[ekg]

So you are now going to blame CONSERVATIVES for the SCOTUS ruling? It wasn't up to the "con govs" to "allow" or not to "allow" anything, it was up to the SCOTUS to decide what was constitutional, and they ruled that your idea was unconstitutional... not conservatives.

I blame Con Governors for not allowing the exchanges and not expanding medicaid.. The Sup's only said the ACA can't punish states who don't do those things, it never said they couldn't implement/expand them.. That little ditty came directly from Con Governors and Con leadership.. So yep, they own the blame and the rise in costs. Because the ACA had built in cost-cutters.. Cons removed those ( by not implementing or expanding) just so that people will hurt and they can look good.

Don't you get that yet? The 'sting' you or me is going to feel from the implementation of Obamacare is directly caused by Republicans, not Obamacare.

Single payer is dead, it was quietly put to sleep by the benevolence of one, Justice Roberts, and four others who voted with him on Thursday. Congress has no commerce clause authority to regulate this, therefore, that puts an end to "public option" or "single payer" or whatever you wish to call it. You can pass a massive TAX to pay for it, if that's what you think will fly... I say, GO FOR IT!

Besides being too new to know what rules your delusions play by, you don't even have your definitions correct. Typical of a Fox viewer tho, so let me try and remedy this...

single-payer is when there are no 'typical' insurance companies to pay doctors for their service.. instead there is just one a 'single-payer' if you will, that pays the docs their fees.. every person in this country pays a little bit in the their taxes to the state the way they pay for medicare/medicaid already, and viola, they can go to the doc and the State sends the docs it's payment for the service.. instead of you paying your insurance company and that company making a profit off of that money,denying your claim, and then maybe paying your doctor.... this is legal (see below)

single payer is not universal healthcare, but you can have a single-payer universal healthcare system, but we're just working with small potatoes right now..

a public-option is where, along side with private insurance options for people buy from, there is a government option, we'll call that 'public option'.. what it allows is for people who can not qualify for group discounts, because they don't work for a large company who can qualify for that discount..to get a better rate on their insurance costs...(this is also legal, but can be opted out of, what the Cons are doing to keep costs high in their states, instead of helping people who need low-cost insurance..) a public option competes with private insurances and thus lowering the costs of both..

now that we know what we're talking about.. Yes, single-payer is not only legal, but thriving this country..

the military has a type of single-payer.. and it's legal
congress has a type of single-payer.. and it's legal
medicaid recipients a type of single-payer.. and it's legal
Medicare recipients have a type of single-payer.. and it's legal

... the only thing that needs to happen for everyone in the country to have a type of 'single-payer'... is that we remove the age restriction from 'medicare' and we'd have medicare for all..

and guess what? we could still have private insurance as well. .. because there are some things medicare doesn't cover, but with the basic plan.. well, those add-ons aren't that bad at all.. but if you didn't want them or need them, you could atleast see a doc when you were sick and not have to sell your house to pay for that visit.

maybe you can explain why this is such a horrible plan?

 

[apple0154]

So you are now going to blame CONSERVATIVES for the SCOTUS ruling? It wasn't up to the "con govs" to "allow" or not to "allow" anything, it was up to the SCOTUS to decide what was constitutional, and they ruled that your idea was unconstitutional... not conservatives.

Single payer is dead, it was quietly put to sleep by the benevolence of one, Justice Roberts, and four others who voted with him on Thursday. Congress has no commerce clause authority to regulate this, therefore, that puts an end to "public option" or "single payer" or whatever you wish to call it. You can pass a massive TAX to pay for it, if that's what you think will fly... I say, GO FOR IT!

The point is passing a tax for it does not necessarily mean taxes will increase as a budget can reduce the amount of tax going to other projects.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

...maybe you can explain why this is such a horrible plan?

Probably not, but I'm confident he can post more unsubstantiated bloviation replete with capitalized text and extra exclamation points.

 

[apple0154]

There is nothing "outlandish" about what I have stated, and it certainly doesn't contradict anything others have said, or Romney, for that matter.

The SCOTUS ruled that ACA couldn't use the $600 billion it sought from Medicare, because Congress does not have such authority under the commerce clause. Now that $600 billion in funding, was completely separate and unrelated to the mandate or penalty proposed.

You argument is the equivalent of saying: The 1st Amendment means black people and minorities can say whatever they want and everyone else has to shut up and listen! That's CLEARLY NOT what the 1st Amendment says or means... but since you interpret the smallest of portions and apply it to your myopic example, that's how you view it. The whole reason the mandate and penalty were deemed TAX, is because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to regulate health care under the commerce clause.

Question for you , Dix. If the government can expand medicare to include everyone can it get rid of medicare and call it ObamaCare and ALL the money that goes to medicare would go to ObamaCare?

 

[ekg]

That would figure into a single person making more then $15,100.00 would need to have insurance or they will incure the fine.

http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf

Two people would have to earn less then $20,425.50 to qualify for the non-funded subsidy.

again, which is where the 'exchanges' would have benefited those people who cannot qualify for the expanded medicaid..They would have gotten pretty great reductions on thei costs... but the states under GOP leadership, won't allow the exchanges for purely political reasons..

 

[USFREEDOM911]

what is there to fund?

Those who fall under the poverty level and qualify for the subsidy that someone mentioned.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

again, which is where the 'exchanges' would have benefited those people who cannot qualify for the expanded medicaid..They would have gotten pretty great reductions on thei costs... but the states under GOP leadership, won't allow the exchanges for purely political reasons..

So where's the funding for Obama's bill?

 

[ekg]

So where's the funding for Obama's bill?

I'm not sure what you're asking.. are you asking how is it paid for?

The Act's provisions are intended to be funded by a variety of taxes and offsets. Major sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% excise tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as changes in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.[44]

Summary of tax increases:

Broaden the Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Charge of an annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
Impose a 40% excise tax on health insurance policies which cost more than $10,200/$27,500 per year: $32 billion
Impose an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose a 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
Raise the 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
Limit annual contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion

Original budget estimates included a provision to require information reporting on payments to corporations, which had been projected to raise $17 billion, but the provision was repealed.[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Summary_of_funding

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

false!!! They found Congress had no authority to penalize people for not buying insurance under the CC, but they do have the authority to fine people who do not have insurance because such a fine is a tax!

You are a fool, we all can see it! We ALL know you are wrong.

If you could have you would have posted a quite from the opinion, it's not in there do you won't!

What's with the "We" shit, Jughead? You mean, you, ButtJuice, OneCell, and Howdy-doody? Sorry, your collective opinion matters to me about like the crud under my big toenail. Nothing I have stated is wrong. If you wish to believe in some fantasy about the ruling, that is entirely your right as an American.

Congress has NO power to regulate health care under the commerce clause.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm not sure what you're asking.. are you asking how is it paid for?

So basically the intent all along was to TAKE from some and give to others; ie: tax.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Act's provisions are intended to be funded by a variety of taxes and offsets. Major sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% excise tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as changes in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.[44]

Summary of tax increases:

Broaden the Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Charge of an annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
Impose a 40% excise tax on health insurance policies which cost more than $10,200/$27,500 per year: $32 billion
Impose an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose a 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
Raise the 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
Limit annual contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion

Original budget estimates included a provision to require information reporting on payments to corporations, which had been projected to raise $17 billion, but the provision was repealed.[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...ary_of_funding

Sorry, but this information was compiled BEFORE the ruling from SCOTUS. First off, everywhere you mentioned Medicare, you can erase those out... they can't apply, according to SCOTUS. You can't pay for this with Medicare funds. This would include increasing Medicare taxes... because again, you can't use those funds if they are collected for Medicare. You see, before the SCOTUS ruling, the proponents of Obamacare assumed they could... but the court ruled they can't. So now, all those hundreds of billions will have to come from someplace else. Second... erase all all the regulatory burdens on manufacturers and corporations, because again.. it was presumed the commerce clause would allow the Feds to do this, and the court found you can't apply the commerce clause.

All in all, this guts the financing of Obamacare. You will have to go back to Congress and re-argue for a MASSIVE tax increase to fund it. Now maybe if it were still 2008, and you had the Doe-eyed idiot and her kangaroo House running around changing rules and manipulating votes to get barely enough to pass? But that's not going to be what you have in January 2013. The House will be Republican, and may very well have a supermajority. The Senate might be Republican too, and the presidency. I just don't think passing a massive tax increase to keep Obamacare floating, is going to be on the top of their priority list, but we'll see!

 

[Jarod]

What's with the "We" shit, Jughead? You mean, you, ButtJuice, OneCell, and Howdy-doody? Sorry, your collective opinion matters to me about like the crud under my big toenail. Nothing I have stated is wrong. If you wish to believe in some fantasy about the ruling, that is entirely your right as an American.

Congress has NO power to regulate health care under the commerce clause.

We are the people who read this board. You are a big joke here, and insisting that tge S.Ct. Ruled the way you are claiming just makes you funnier and funnier!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We are the people who read this board. You are a big joke here, and insisting that tge S.Ct. Ruled the way you are claiming just makes you funnier and funnier!

haha... YOU are the JOKE here, Jughead. It wasn't until just recently, you learned how to half-ass spell, you bumbling illiterate.

You and your little clown brigade are NOT the ONLY people who read this board. I venture to say, there are more people than you handful of dimwits, who come here and read as guests on a daily basis, and never join the forum.

The SCOTUS ruled Obamacare couldn't stand under the commerce clause, that is of very key importance. You want to argue that only applied to the mandate and penalty, but it also applies to funding, which is why you can't raid Medicare funds to pay for this. IF the commerce clause applied when it came to funding, why wouldn't it apply to the mandate and penalty? This doesn't make logical sense. The first issue, was to determine if the Feds could use the commerce clause to regulate health care, and the court found they did NOT have this authority. That meant, the plan to raid Medicare had to be shot down, and it was stipulated that funding could not come from an already-existing program the tax payers were funding. The mandate and penalty were allowed to stand, but not under the commerce clause... they couldn't stand under the commerce clause, because the ruling was the commerce clause did not apply. Roberts ruled the mandate and penalty COULD exist, just as the general funding of the bill, ONLY as a tax... not through the commerce clause.

Now you can be a stubborn little shit, and keep parading around starting new threads, and ridiculing me in every one... I really don't give two fucks, that's still what the SCOTUS ruled, I've read it about 5 times already, I am well aware of what's in it. I don't need to post snippets to "prove" anything to you... I had just as soon you head to November believing this issue has been settled by the court and Obamacare is safe!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

you claim the mandate is a tax, not just the penalty. You were wrong, I posted from Roberts opinion showing that you were wrong.

and I gave you my response.....

 

[Jarod]

haha... YOU are the JOKE here, Jughead. It wasn't until just recently, you learned how to half-ass spell, you bumbling illiterate.

You and your little clown brigade are NOT the ONLY people who read this board. I venture to say, there are more people than you handful of dimwits, who come here and read as guests on a daily basis, and never join the forum.

The SCOTUS ruled Obamacare couldn't stand under the commerce clause, that is of very key importance. You want to argue that only applied to the mandate and penalty, but it also applies to funding, which is why you can't raid Medicare funds to pay for this. IF the commerce clause applied when it came to funding, why wouldn't it apply to the mandate and penalty? This doesn't make logical sense. The first issue, was to determine if the Feds could use the commerce clause to regulate health care, and the court found they did NOT have this authority. That meant, the plan to raid Medicare had to be shot down, and it was stipulated that funding could not come from an already-existing program the tax payers were funding. The mandate and penalty were allowed to stand, but not under the commerce clause... they couldn't stand under the commerce clause, because the ruling was the commerce clause did not apply. Roberts ruled the mandate and penalty COULD exist, just as the general funding of the bill, ONLY as a tax... not through the commerce clause.

Now you can be a stubborn little shit, and keep parading around starting new threads, and ridiculing me in every one... I really don't give two fucks, that's still what the SCOTUS ruled, I've read it about 5 times already, I am well aware of what's in it. I don't need to post snippets to "prove" anything to you... I had just as soon you head to November believing this issue has been settled by the court and Obamacare is safe!

Still nothing Dixie, I thought as much. Maybe you can tell
me if anyone agrees with you? Or as I point out, are you all alone?